4.7 Review

An Evaluation of Medication Prescribing Patterns for Acute Migraine in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10061191

关键词

migraine; acute care; emergency department; analgesic; triptan; opioid; NSAID

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed that treatment practices for acute migraine in the emergency department are heterogeneous and deviate from established international recommendations, with concerning trends towards underutilization of triptans and overutilization of opioids in many institutions.
Migraine is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide and patients with acute migraine frequently present to emergency departments (ED). The current literature suggests that ED treatment of migraine headache varies across institutions. Considering this, we conducted a scoping review to summarize trends in medication prescribing patterns for acute migraine treatment in the ED setting. Trends were evaluated for factors influencing treatment choices, with particular attention placed on opioids and migraine specific therapy. This scoping review was based on the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework and included studies published between 1 January 2000 and 31 May 2020. 14 publications met the inclusion criteria. The most common classes of medication prescribed were anti-emetics or Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), but rates varied between studies. There was a concerning trend towards an underutilization of triptans and overutilization of opiates. The use of specific clinical treatment goals (e.g., two-hour pain free freedom response) was also not evident. Additionally, 88% (n = 8) of the nine studies commenting on adherence to hospital or evidence-based guidelines stated that practices were non-adherent. Overall, the reviewed literature reveals treatment practices for acute migraine in the ED are heterogeneous and deviate from established international recommendations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据